142 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 7, page 11, line 38, after “support” insert “and staying put support”.<span id="169" class="column-number" data-column-number="169"></span> <em>This amendment would include staying put support in the support provided by local authorities under this section and extend the provision of Staying Put for young people to the age of 25.</em>
I am pleased to move amendment 12 to clause 7, on extending Staying Put for children in foster care to the age of 25. This group of amendments seeks to address the potential two-tier system that the Bill will create by extending provisions for Staying Close but not Staying Put. Many care leavers face a cliff edge in care at the age of 18. Staying Put is a scheme that has been introduced to enable young people in foster care to stay with their foster carers until the age of 21 to support them into adulthood, whereas Staying Close is for young people in residential care. In the UK, it is becoming increasingly difficult for young people to reach independence at the age of 21. In fact, the Office for National Statistics published a report last year showing that the average age at which young people move out of the family home is 24. The independent review on children’s social care recognised the disparity between young people in care and their non-care experienced peers, and it recommended that both Staying Close and Staying Put be extended to the age of 23. It appears that the Bill has responded to that recommendation by putting in place provision to extend Staying Close to age 25, but it does not do the same for those in Staying Put arrangements. I tabled this probing amendment to ask the Minister to explain the justification for that disparity and for the effective creation of a two-tier system for young people in those situations. Evaluations of Staying Put have found that it significantly reduces the risk of homelessness for care leavers. The care review found that it would contribute towards savings of £84 million over five years, mostly due to reduced homelessness. Of course, the financial savings are not the primary motivation; it is about what is best for young people and ensuring that they have the best possible opportunity to successfully transition into adulthood. Foster carers and young people consistently report that the extension of Staying Put would result in better outcomes for young people, providing them with the choice—not insistence—to remain in the family environment.<span id="170" class="column-number" data-column-number="170"></span> In the words of a foster carer who recently spoke to the Fostering Network: “The increase in the age for staying put would be of amazing benefit to care leavers. At the age of 21 many young people who have had the opportunity to go to university are just obtaining their qualification and then have to face negotiating their next huge step, the job market, and to find that they are possibly homeless due to leaving their placement. This is a catastrophic step backwards.” I warmly urge the Minister to consider ensuring that there is parity in the Staying Close and Staying Put schemes, given that foster care and a family environment have the best long-term outcomes for young people in care transitioning into adulthood.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.<span id="172" class="column-number" data-column-number="172"></span> <em>Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.</em> <em>Ordered</em>, That further consideration be now adjourned.<em> —(Vicky </em><em>Foxcroft</em><em>.)</em>
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I rise to speak to amendment 49 regarding family group decision making at the point of family reunification. Reunification—the process of returning a child in care to their family—is the most common route by <span id="121" class="column-number" data-column-number="121"></span>which children leave care, accounting for 27% of all children who left care in 2023. It is also one of the most sensitive and significant transitions a child can experience. When done well, it can offer children stability, security and permanence at home with their family, but too often the reunifications fail. In fact, one in three children who return home then re-enter the care system, so thousands of children are enduring yet more displacement, disrupted attachments, instability and broken trust. The human cost of those failed reunifications is immeasurable, but the financial cost is also stark. Failed reunifications cost the public purse £370 million annually—money that would be better spent supporting families in the first place. Research tells us that too many reunifications break down because families do not receive the support that they need to make that process successful, tut there is no national strategy for supporting reunifications. Support across the country is inconsistent, and alarmingly, 78% of authorities report that the support that they offer is inadequate—the authorities report that themselves. Amendment 49 provides a clear, practical, evidence-based solution—effectively a mirror to the Government’s clause 1. The amendment would require local authorities to offer family group decision making no later than one month after the discharge of a care order for the purpose of family reunification. Of course, in practice, it is envisaged that the family group decision-making process would be offered before the child returns home to support that return. As the Committee has already heard and discussed, family group decision making is a powerful tool. It brings families together to identify solutions, develop a plan and build a network of support around the child. It can empower families to take ownership of the challenges that they face, and foster collaborative work with professionals that promotes the safety and wellbeing of the child while also amplifying the child’s voice. My argument is that that is as important towards the end of a care process as it is at the beginning. Family group decision making is well established and recognised as best practice by professionals. We already have clear evidence on its effectiveness, and we are awaiting more, as the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston said. However, the lack of a statutory duty to offer it has led to patchy practice across the country. One third of local authorities do not offer family group decision making at all during reunification. Amendment 49 addresses that gap. It would ensure that every family in England has the opportunity to benefit from that approach. The requirement in the amendment is to offer it; it does not impose any sort of time limit. Some Members might worry about the practicalities or cost of introducing the duty, but as I have already explained, the breakdown of family reunification is an incredibly costly process, both financially and for the child’s welfare. The amendment is a financial cost-saving measure as well as a child-centred one. Research shows that providing support to meet a family’s needs during reunification costs just £7,857 per child. By contrast, the cost of a single reunification breakdown is £105,000. Amendment 49 would be The amendment is practical and allows for professional judgment, recognising that every family is different. Where a meeting is not in a child’s best interests, the local authority would be exempt from the duty to make the offer, and that flexibility ensures that the needs <span id="122" class="column-number" data-column-number="122"></span>of children always come first. The amendment also complements existing provisions in the Bill. It effectively mirrors the duty to offer family group decision making before care proceedings, and therefore offers a coherent support framework at both ends of the care process—effectively bookending it. It brings much-needed consistency to a fragmented system. With more children in care than ever before, as we have noted, and with children’s services under immense strain, the amendment represents a real opportunity. By embedding family group decision making we can enable more families to stay together, reduce the number of children returning to care, which is an incredibly damaging process, and relieve pressure on an overstretched system, all while delivering better outcomes for those children. This is about fairness, consistency, investing in what works and ensuring that all reunifying families, not just some, are given the help they need. It is about recognising the importance of successful reunification within the care process. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s reflections on the proposal and the other questions raised this morning.
Will the Minister respond directly to the thrust of amendment 49? The Bill is shifting from a position where the consideration of family group decision making is already encouraged to a statutory requirement before starting care proceedings. Amendment 49 asks for a mirroring of that at the potential end of care proceedings. Why does the Minister feel that it is important to move to a statutory footing at the start but not the end, particularly given the statistics that I have referenced on the frequency of breakdown? Would it not be entirely consistent for the Bill to specify this—bookending both ends of the care process?
I wish to ask the Minister if she would meet with me to discuss this matter.
I am delighted to serve under your chairship again, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing this important debate. Having worked with him on the issue, I know we share a commitment to securing a fair solution for the workers affected by these rules.<span id="404WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="404WH"></span> As the hon. Member outlined, the situation for people on health and care worker visas is uniquely difficult. The way that visa works puts employees into an incredibly and intolerably vulnerable position. If they lose their job, they lose their right to live and work in the UK, unless they find an eligible alternative employer within 60 days. A survey conducted by the Work Rights Centre found that only 5% of those who tried were successful within that timeframe. The situation can be even more difficult when, as Unison reports, employers withhold references for employees trying to change jobs. We can see it is really difficult for those workers to change employers. What does that mean? It means that employers hold significant power over their employees’ right to live and work here. Their lives are effectively under the control of the employers. That can be disastrous, as it has been found that many employers wield that power to make unfair demands on their workers. There have been reports of unreasonable demands made under the either implicit or sometimes explicit threat of revoking sponsorship. Employers do not have the right to deport people, yet that is what they are threatening to do. The Royal College of Nursing told us about a member who was asked to work on days she was not contracted to, tried to refuse and was told in reply by the employer, “We sponsor you.” That was a clear threat intended to intimidate her into compliance with work outside the contract. That is echoed by a domiciliary care worker from India who told Unison that every conversation they had with managers felt threatening and often ended with the word “visa”. The RCN has also reported threatening tactics being used to get employees to sign new more restrictive contracts, including—shockingly—being given just 30 minutes to sign before having their sponsorship revoked. Care worker Divya told Citizens Advice that she had not been paid in two months, while her British colleagues had been paid as normal. She was falling behind on bills. Having contacted her employer once about it, she was understandably scared to follow up, in fear she would be dismissed. She said: “I feel like we’re being treated as slaves.” There are other horrific examples, such as being given unsuitable and overpriced housing, or finding out that they do not even have the work that was promised when they arrived. Citizens Advice reports that a quarter of the migrant care workers it spoke to were given no work when they arrived in the UK. One in eight contracts were changed on arrival. It is blatantly clear that that is completely unacceptable. The Government have acknowledged the harm of those rogue employers, and have taken action around increasing sanctions for the breach of rules. However, as the hon. Member for Poole pointed out, those measures do not do enough to address the toxic power imbalance that arises when so much of an employee’s life is in the hands of a single employer. In short, they do not prevent this injustice. That is the crux of the issue and must be addressed. A certificate of common sponsorship would change that. It would mean that an employee’s sponsorship would not be chained to a single employer and it would break that exclusive link that is so often exploited. I strongly urge the Government to consider that as a <span id="405WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="405WH"></span>solution. We have already had helpful suggestions for how it might work. Then we can empower migrant care workers to demand the fair conditions they rightly deserve.
I appreciate the work that the Minister is doing to address this issue and that there are no quick fixes, but given the terrible cases we have heard today—I have constituent who had to wait two years for an assessment, which spanned the whole length of their GCSE courses—does she agree with those who point out that the funding allocated so far will, given council debts, hardly touch the sides in terms of the SEND capacity that is needed?
Expanding London’s airports and building a third runway at Heathrow would be incredibly irresponsible in the midst of a climate emergency, flying in the face of the Climate Change Committee’s advice. The Prime Minister clearly knows that, because he and seven Cabinet colleagues voted against a third runway at Heathrow in 2018. Will he confirm his position?
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{DDC275E0-3D94-41B6-AAB0-6B98C448C632}"> </QNum></strong> You have enthused about family group decision making. Do you think it would be useful at other stages in the process, particularly in approaching families for unification at the point of discharge for care leavers?<span id="10" class="column-number" data-column-number="10"></span> <em><strong>Dr Homden:</strong></em> Yes, we would support that. We would also call for specific coverage in the statutory guidance on how children with family members abroad can benefit, and for consideration in that guidance on contact, particularly with siblings. <em><strong>Anne Longfield:</strong></em> I would also look at the mechanism at other points, such as when children are at risk of becoming involved in crime and the like. But for now, yes.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{682BB120-8AE2-48A1-A142-8D15A87AD132}"> </QNum></strong> Clause 8 specifies that local authorities need to set out a local offer. You have talked about the need to avoid fragmentation, and about corporate responsibility across the country and across Departments. Would you like to see the Bill amended to require a national offer of support to care leavers, and what do you think should be in it? <em><strong>Ruth Stanier:</strong></em> We certainly would want to see corporate parenting duties extended at a national level to Government Departments and relevant public sector bodies. We think that is incredibly important. Otherwise, we are very much supportive of the measures in the Bill in respect of the kinship offer, though we think it is important that there is a clear threshold for that support so that it is realistic and affordable and can be implemented. <em><strong>Andy Smith:</strong></em> I would support that. A national offer for care leavers is an interesting concept. There should be some absolute minimum requirements we expect in an offer, and I think you would broadly see that in many councils in what is provided for children in care and for care leavers. It is usually co-produced with representatives who were care leavers, and with councils and so on. I think that would be an important reflection within the context of a much broader understanding of corporate parenting.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{6D8563B5-9B9A-4D0B-9706-398024EAB836}"> </QNum></strong> The Bill talks about breakfast clubs, but says nothing about free school meals more widely. Would you like to see an expansion of eligibility for free school meals? <em><strong>Julie McCulloch:</strong></em> We would.
Could you elaborate on that? <em><strong>Julie McCulloch:</strong></em> Happily. We would like to see the expansion up to 18—at the moment, it goes up to only 16 —and we would like to see it expanded to all children in families receiving universal credit. <em><strong>Paul Whiteman:</strong></em> We are in a similar position. We absolutely accept the evidence that well-fed students perform and work better. Our only concern is the level of funding that comes with it. The provision has to be funded properly, not just for buying the food but, importantly, for the capital costs to make sure that those things can be delivered properly.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{D52B89CE-1871-47E0-BA57-6621B073220E}"> </QNum></strong> To follow up a little, do you think the Bill does enough to centre the voices of children ? You have talked particularly about that in terms of family decision making, but are there other aspects of the Bill where you would like to see amendments made? <em><strong>Jacky Tiotto:</strong></em> Deprivation of liberty, definitely. May I say something about elective home education and also the Staying Close provision? The Bill’s intention to formalise elective home education is long overdue, and children’s views about that education should be well and truly sought before any decision is taken to permit it. It is a bit permissive at the minute, in terms of how section 47 is drafted: if the local authorities had cause to think that you had been, and now have established that you have been, significantly harmed or at risk of significant harm, then on no day of any week could it be okay for you to be out of sight being educated somewhere else. I think it should be a flat no if you are on a child protection plan. If you are a child in need under section 17, there should be more regular review of the child in need plan if you are being electively home educated. But every time, that child should be asked how it is going: “Is this helping you, are you feeling safe?” More generally, at every one of these points where we are mandating something about safety, the first thing should be: what is the view of the child? If the child cannot speak, or is a baby, then somebody with the ability to speak on their behalf should be asked. We should tick nothing off without that being the case.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{DBFB806C-DB30-4C34-9B14-A183145EB58A}"> </QNum></strong> And Staying Close? <em><strong>Jacky Tiotto:</strong></em> Again, another welcome introduction and formalisation. CAFCASS is involved with 25,000 children a year in public law proceedings. It would be nice if the drafters could require CAFCASS—at the end of proceedings, in its closing letter to the independent reviewing officer—to say, “We think, having come to know this child, that x, y, or z would be an appropriate provision for them in terms of Staying Close.” We will have got to know and had a relationship with that child throughout the proceedings. The same could apply when we are asked to discharge care orders, which is 10% of our work—again, asking us to write back to the local authority as the child’s guardian and say, “This child will not benefit from being housed 45 miles away,” or “This child will need access to grandma.” Asking us to do that at the end of proceedings would be an important addition to regulations or guidance. We are a bit missed out from the process, and we bring that voice of the child.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{D83FADF8-0CED-4DC6-B911-CE981866EBD4}"> </QNum></strong> What about the idea of expanding Staying Put in addition to the expansion of Staying Close? <em><strong>Jacky </strong></em><em><strong>Tiotto</strong></em><em><strong>:</strong></em> All good. It is the same thing.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{B3E4EF35-A799-497A-85C3-504638EE17B6}"> </QNum></strong> You would like to see that too.<span id="36" class="column-number" data-column-number="36"></span> <em><strong>Jacky </strong></em><em><strong>Tiotto</strong></em><em><strong>:</strong></em> Yes.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{A25D5A30-26D2-4834-BEA2-FE8F642C3A02}"> </QNum></strong> Because that is missing from this Bill. <em><strong>Jacky </strong></em><em><strong>Tiotto</strong></em><em><strong>:</strong></em> Yes, it is. I have worked with many children who are terrified of the cliff edge of 18; in fact, they start worrying about it at 16. It often blights the last few years of their care.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{27B17255-74BD-4AE4-8BE8-3A78F31659A1}"> </QNum></strong> What would you like to see, ideally? <em><strong>Jacky </strong></em><em><strong>Tiotto</strong></em><em><strong>:</strong></em> The provision mandated to 21, everywhere. I will probably be shot for saying that—
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{E2CDC1ED-4EEF-4A74-BD26-D6213D91D8C4}"> </QNum></strong> On balance, do you welcome the provisions in the Bill to ensure that all schools follow the national curriculum? <em><strong>Lee Owston:</strong></em> Obviously there is a review, from Professor Becky Francis, of what the national curriculum will contain, and we are speaking frequently with members of that review. From an inspector’s position, it will always be about how providers are adhering to the legal requirements set by Government and Parliament. Obviously, we look forward to seeing what the Bill produces in how we then interact with it. In terms of a broad legal requirement, and what all children as a minimum should be able to access, I would support that statement.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{79CFB19A-7069-49E0-B837-02D0DF043549}"> </QNum></strong> Lynn, what is your view on the fact that the Bill does not contain provisions to give children equal protection from violence to adults? <em><strong>Lynn Perry:</strong></em> We think that this is an opportunity for that to be addressed in legislation. As a charity that works across the devolved nations, we have obviously seen change in other areas. Now is the opportunity for us to address the defence of reasonable chastisement in legislation and give children equal protection. It is important to note that values, public attitudes and the way in which we frame childhood have changed significantly, so to consider that further would be very welcome.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{BFBA27A6-5DDE-4E9B-AA39-7624EA3B4742}"> </QNum></strong> So you would like to see the Bill amended in that way? <em><strong>Lynn Perry:</strong></em> We would.
As the MP for Bristol Central, I cannot speak directly on behalf of councillors for Brighton and Hove, other than to point out that my understanding is that their hands were tied by a deal that was agreed by the previous Labour administration
I and the Green party welcome this scheme; however, I am disappointed to see a deposit return scheme that does not include glass. Implementing a deposit return scheme that includes glass is really not unprecedented; it is absolutely possible. In fact, there are around 50 schemes around the world, 46 of which include glass. The remaining four do not, but that is only because there is a separate glass scheme. While I welcome the progress, which I am sure will help, will the Government look at this again, and work closely with the Welsh Government to see how glass can be included? On a tangentially related note, I want to quickly respond to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), who appears to have stepped out of the Chamber. Since my response to him earlier, a resident of Brighton and Hove has been in touch—the hon. Member may regret having raised this—to explain that the 25-year private finance initiative deal that Brighton and Hove council was locked into, which heavily restricted the range of products that could be recycled, was originally brought in by a Labour Administration, but was later extended by a Conservative one.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to correct the record following my intervention on the New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill on Friday. I said: “Regulations were due to come into force in 2016 that would have required all new homes to have zero carbon standards. Those regulations were scrapped by the coalition Government.”<span id="vol760_col631" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="631" data-volume-number="760">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 17 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 631.]</span> In fact, regulations that would have required all new homes to have zero carbon standards were due to come into force in 2016, but they were watered down by the coalition Government in 2014, and the requirement for all new homes to have zero carbon standards was scrapped. What was left of the watered-down regulations was subsequently scrapped by the following Conservative Government in 2015.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate, and Shannon for starting the petition. I am grateful to be able to speak here, on behalf of the hundreds of my constituents who signed this petition, to highlight the negative impacts of the previous Government’s policy to increase income requirements for family visas. Those negative impacts have been present since the inception of this income requirement, but were made substantially worse by the increase. We are talking about a tax on love: an ugly policy that fundamentally discriminates against migrants’ families and implies that love, and family reunification, is a privilege that people must earn enough to afford. Just last week, I was contacted by a constituent who was forced to choose between being separated from his wife and moving to her home country of Taiwan. I will quote what he wrote to me after deciding to leave: “Now in the UK we judge people by their country of origin and the content of their wallet... If you have money then you are welcome here, if you don’t, then don’t you dare fall in love with someone foreign.” Is that really the country we want to be? As we have just heard, around half of UK employees earn less than the current income requirement of £29,000 a year, and as job offers and prospective earnings for the non-UK citizens are not included, meeting that requirement is made even more difficult for many couples from overseas who just want to be together. That is not to mention the regional inequality factor, as average salaries differ throughout the UK, so a person’s ability to love who they love may also depend on where in the UK they live and work. I do appreciate and welcome the Government commissioning the Migration Advisory Committee to review this horrible rule, but I note with disappointment that in the meantime the income requirement remains in place. It is clear that the intention of this policy was not to benefit UK society, or even the economy; it is simply a cruel attempt to appear tough on migration. In fact, this policy harms society and public finances. There are cases where enforced separation has caused UK citizens to be reliant on state benefits, which they <span id="225WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="225WH"></span>would not be if their partners were allowed to live with them. There are also often costs on the NHS and social services, as the trauma of families being forced and torn apart causes long-lasting mental health issues. Children in affected families are often aware of this policy and feel its impacts deeply. They report feeling sadness, loneliness and guilt, with some explaining that they struggle to sleep or to focus at school. Often, children are aware of the financial strain caused by this rule, and some kids told Reunite Families UK that they were trying to earn money themselves to help with costs. The impact of this policy on children and young people can last a lifetime, affecting their mental health, financial stability and sense of belonging. I wonder why! As RFUK told the Migration Advisory Committee, this has long-term impacts on people’s integration into society and their economic performance. I reiterate that this is a cruel and nasty policy. It fundamentally discriminates against people based on who they love and how much money they make. It is unjust and it undermines its own purposes, sending an offensive message to families and their children. I urge the Government to get rid of it without delay.
I have been listening carefully to what the Minister has said. Does he agree that a vote on Second Reading is a vote on the principle of the Bill, and the objections that he has been raising are micro, technical ones? Does he not agree that the urgency of the climate crisis and the <span id="655" class="column-number" data-column-number="655"></span>immense benefits associated with solar PV mean that he should stop raining on the parade of this Bill and give us the opportunity to vote on photons?
The 1.5° global temperature limit was passed for the first time ever in 2024. This politically significant milestone is a stark reminder that we must leave no stone unturned as we make the systemic changes required to every part of our economy for a safe future. Rooftop solar is one of the easiest of the changes that we can make. As the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) said, it is a “win-win-win” policy that helps cut people’s bills and climate emissions, and helps strengthen our energy security. Research and development of rooftop solar is already a British success story—we are world leaders—so it is time to take the next step and maximise deployment of on-site solar generation in new builds. That is the aim of the sunshine Bill, and I am pleased to have co-sponsored this proposal to create new jobs, to drive innovation yet further, and to generate abundant amounts of energy both while the sun shines and, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) pointed out, when it does not. Making solar panels mandatory on suitable new homes is almost universally popular—other than with some major house builders. That is what I want to focus on during the short time available to me. Solar Energy UK estimates that, of the 15 GW of solar power capacity currently in place, around two thirds is on the ground and the remainder is on residential and commercial roofs. If we are to meet the Government’s targets to ramp up solar capacity—which I hope we do—we should be looking up. Some 80% of the buildings that we will have in 2050 have already been built, so we must work hard to retrofit them with renewables, but the remaining 20% have still to be built. For goodness’ sake, let’s build them right the first time. That is where private housing developers come into the mix. The British designer and “Grand Designs” presenter Kevin McCloud wrote last year that in 15 years’ time the average profit on each new build home has rocketed from £6,000 to £63,000. I call on Ministers to stand up to the major house builders and ensure that they pay the cost of putting solar on every suitable new roof. The organisation 100% Renewable UK has calculated that mandatory solar panels and heat pumps in new homes would add around £8,000 to the cost of a new home—an amount that decreases as installations gather speed. Clearly, housing developers can afford that cost, and neither they nor anyone else can afford the consequences of not meeting our solar or other climate targets. The Los Angeles wildfires are on track to be among the costliest in US history, as well as the most heartbreaking, with losses already expected to exceed £109.7 billion. Failing to decarbonise at speed, in line with the climate science, will dwarf the cost of future-proofing our homes. The moral case for acting is unequivocal, and so too is the economic one. If Ministers are worried about the risk of solar costs being passed on to homebuyers, the Government could simply stop that happening. They could also offer interest-free loans for this technology, and make it easier for retail lenders to drive rooftop deployments. Property-linked finance or green mortgages can help consumers with the capital costs of installation, as could regulation to <span id="641" class="column-number" data-column-number="641"></span>incentivise low interest rates for green mortgages. These are all political choices that the Government could make. The sunshine Bill is not just about solar panels but about—forgive me—shining some sunlight on who has the power. Making every home a mini power station would help rebalance that power towards communities. I therefore very much hope that the Government will today choose to back both a solar rooftop revolution and mandatory solar being included in the future homes standard, rather than choosing to protect the vested interests that are behind the vast and ultimately unsustainable house builders’ profits.
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; my former colleagues at the MCS Foundation have provided research in support of the Bill. I want to pick up on the hon. Gentleman’s point about timescales, because in my experience this issue is the one that is raised most commonly by residents wanting to see action. Why on earth, they say, are new homes being put up without solar panels on them? Time is of the essence, but is it not the case that we have already lost many opportunities to progress? Regulations were due to come into force in 2016 that would have required all new homes to have zero carbon standards. Those regulations were scrapped by the coalition Government.<span id="vol760_col976" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="976" data-volume-number="760">[<em>Official Report</em>, 21 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 976.] (Correction)</span> [Hon. Members: “No, they weren’t.”] The briefing I have had says that they were scrapped in 2014. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> Either way, I am pleased to see cross-party support today to press ahead with this proposal at speed. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that speed is of the essence here to ensure that homes are not being put up without solar panels?
The Office for Environmental Protection published its annual report today on our progress in protecting the environment. Unfortunately, it is not good news: we are off-track on 20 out of 43 targets, and only five out of its 52 recommendations last year have been implemented. The report, which deals with the period under the previous Government, shows that progress was slowing on nature protection in that year. This Government have announced that they will review the environmental improvement plan. Can the Leader of the House tell us when that review will be <span id="501" class="column-number" data-column-number="501"></span>published? Can a Minister come to the House to make a statement on how the Government will turn this around to protect nature?
I warmly welcome this ceasefire agreement, and like colleagues across the House, I fervently hope that the Israeli Cabinet will approve it, but I think we all recognise that, while the ceasefire may bring an end to the current extremes of violence, it will not end the conflict. A number of conditions need to be met for lasting peace, so will the Foreign Secretary set out a timetable for UK recognition of the state of Palestine, and the concrete steps that he will take to end the occupation and ensure that all those who have committed war crimes are held fully accountable?
For several decades, the water companies have been able to profit from failure. There is a strong groundswell of opinion among the public, across political persuasions, that real action must be taken and that if there has been real failure, water companies must not just be allowed to carry on operating in the private sector. I welcome the hon. Member’s amendment; mutual ownership is clearly one alternative model. Does he agree that full public ownership is another option that should be investigated in these circumstances?
I thank the Minister for the helpful clarification that the Cunliffe review will consider ownership models, including those that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale has advocated. Will the Minister clarify why the Government are not permitting the Cunliffe review to consider full public ownership as one of the options? Why would they not allow an open assessment of all the potential options, especially given that, as we have heard, public ownership is so common in countries around the world for what is a natural monopoly?
I thank the hon. Member for the new clause. We all recognise the situation he describes. In East Anglia, planned housing growth over the coming decades outpaces available water resources. In my constituency, we already have a water resource zone in Hartismere where business operations and planned business growth are being restricted by the water available. He is addressing some of the important points about water companies’ being able to take responsibility, but do we not also need a joined-up approach? The planning system must be used to address the issues by means of stricter water efficiency requirements, sustainable drainage systems and housing plans that are realistic given the available natural resources. Is there not a problem with just putting the ball in the water companies’ court, rather than taking a more joined-up approach?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) for securing this debate on a hugely important issue that is of deep concern to residents in my constituency of North Herefordshire, which, like hers, is in the Wye catchment. The Lugg, which runs through the centre of my constituency, is a tributary of the Wye. The tributaries of the Lugg are also particularly heavily affected by water pollution, which is one of the reasons why I founded the all-party parliamentary group on water pollution on entering this House in the middle of last year. Water pollution has terrible effects on wildlife, on people’s ability to swim in and use rivers, and on the economy. Hundreds of millions of pounds of damage have been caused to the Herefordshire economy because the levels of pollution mean that we have had a moratorium on house building since 2019—that is really serious damage. It is not just a local issue; we have heard today about what is happening all over the country. The Office for Environmental Protection in its report last year, on our prospect of meeting the legally binding 2027 target, said that we are “off track”, and it is deeply concerning that we are failing to meet that target. We need additional <span id="112WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="112WH"></span>measures, including additional local measures, so I call on the Minister, when she winds up, to tell us what additional measures she will take to tackle water pollution. When I have pressed Ministers on this topic—including this Minister and the Secretary of State—in the House, they have referred to the water commission. I have read its terms of reference several times, but can the Minister tell me where they refer to the problem of agricultural pollution? They do not—I have read them very carefully. The commission does not tackle the elephant in the room. Agricultural pollution is responsible for more pollution across the country than sewage is. In constituencies such as mine, in the Wye catchment, it is the large majority. We know what the solutions are. We need a plan and proper funding for the Wye catchment plan. We need proper funding for nature-friendly farming, because farmers have the solutions to this issue at their fingertips, but they need the Government’s support. We need the Environment Agency to have the funding and teeth it requires, including to level on-the-spot fines. Fundamentally, we need Government to grasp the nettle and to tackle agricultural pollution as seriously as sewage pollution.
Does the Minister agree that the problem with the way the £35 million was previously supposed to be spent was that it was the opposite of the “polluter pays” principle, because it was essentially a subsidy to the most polluting industry? Will she agree to find £35 million to support nature-friendly farming in the Wye catchment to solve the issue?
Following up on the case of Alaa Abd el-Fattah in Egypt, will the Secretary of State say when he expects a substantial response to his engagement with the Egyptian Government? Will he confirm that he will not travel to Egypt unless he is confident that he can return with Alaa?
It is pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for opening this debate. I am grateful to be able to speak in this debate to represent my many constituents who rely on these services every day, and as somebody who spends a lot of time—often more than intended—on trains. Unfortunately, my Bristol Central constituents often contact me about their poor experiences with trains in and around Bristol. Complaints over services, particularly between Bristol and London, are frequent, as the journey entails extortionate, prohibitive costs with disappointing services, cancellations and delays featuring all too often. That unreliability is incredibly frustrating for many constituents, but particularly for disabled constituents and those with long-term health conditions, who raise with me that they often go to huge lengths to carefully plan their journeys, only to have them upturned at the last minute. I reinforce the point made by several Members on the importance of disabled accessible train stations. Does the Minister have any updates about progress to make Lawrence Hill station in Bristol, which is just outside my constituency but used by many of constituents, disabled accessible? I know that my predecessor Thangam Debbonaire campaigned on that issue for many years. Accessibility and unreliability issues affect so many of my constituents, who are left unable to make their trips or are forced to choose transport that is more expensive and often much more damaging to the environment, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) pointed out. Train journeys produce only around 32% of the emissions of a car journey per person; to avoid unnecessary emissions, we need to make the greenest option the easiest option, and that requires, above all, reliability. I am very pleased to see the railways coming back into public ownership; the Green party has been a long-standing advocate of renationalisation, and I am looking forward to seeing the implementation of that essential transition. On that point, can the Minister give any further indications of when Great Western Railway will come back into public ownership? I understand that the core term expiry date is in June this year, but the full expiry date is not until June 2028, leaving some uncertainty over when exactly the Government will end the contract. I would be grateful if the Minister could give any clarification to constituents. Hopefully the answer is sooner rather than later, but if my constituents are facing a wait of three or more years, will the Minister tell us what steps he plans to take to make the train services in the south-west more reliable and affordable in the meantime? I have also been contacted about the reopening of the Portishead branch line which, though not quite in my constituency, is also used by many of my constituents, so I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an update on that too. I will end my remarks there, but I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to my <span id="43WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="43WH"></span>questions and give some clarity to my constituents on the steps being taken to provide a modern, affordable and reliable rail service.
I should declare that I am a member of the Association of Community Organisations for Reform Now, which campaigns on renters’ rights. I thank it for its important work on this Bill, including alongside me. The Bill is hugely welcome, but it can and should go further to fix the grave and urgent housing crisis. I therefore rise to speak to my new clause 7, on rent controls and affordability; new clause 9, on home adaptations for disabled people; and new clauses 17 and 18, on selective licencing schemes. I also want to put on the record my strong support for a number of amendments tabled by others, including the hon. Members for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), and for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker). We have people living on the streets and in temporary accommodation because they cannot afford their rent. New clause 7 proposes a living rent body, which would set the rules that applied to the calculation of rent between tenancies. That would control rents and make them fair, considering factors such as the home’s property type, condition and size, average local incomes and so on. Local flexibility will be important. The measure is needed. The Bill gives renters a once-in-a-generation set of new rights that they have long been denied, but rent controls are still needed, because it is no help to anyone if they have a right to something that they cannot afford or access. Once the Bill does away with section 21, we will need rent controls to prevent rogue landlords from instead hiking rents to kick people out. The Government’s changes to the tribunal system do not go far enough to protect renters from that. First, most tenants do not have the time or energy to navigate the system. Secondly, tribunal panel judges only judge whether a rent rise is fair compared with market rates, and the market rates are too high. We have a generation of people who will never be able to earn enough to have a mortgage, and who cannot even afford their rent now. If a 21-year-old in my home city of Bristol rents a single room today at the average rate, they will have put £80,000 into their landlord’s bank account by their 30th birthday. No wonder that a third of private renters struggle with their housing costs. New clause 7 addresses the plain fact that the market is failing, with terrible costs for people who are struggling and made homeless. There are huge economic costs, too; the Government are set to pay private landlords £70 billion of taxpayers’ money in the five years from 2021 to 2026. That is multiple times the spend on new affordable homes. Surely that is the wrong way round. We can add to that the huge annual spend on temporary accommodation, which cost councils at least £1.74 billion in 2022-23. Rent rises are far outstripping inflation. The Deposit Protection Service rental index found that rents outstripped inflation by one third in 2023. Rightmove reports show that asking rents outside London have risen 60% since 2020, and I assume that I do not have to tell the House that incomes have not grown by the same amount. As I set out in Committee, discussion is vital if we are to avoid unintended consequences, and I do not dismiss the importance of that detailed work. At the same time, <span id="231" class="column-number" data-column-number="231"></span>we cannot ignore the acute affordability crisis for renters. Key workers are being forced out of cities, and people are being forced out of communities that they have made their home. The average rent in my constituency of Bristol Central has hit nearly £1,800 a month. I know what the criticisms will be, but let me remind the House that rent controls are an established part of private renting in 16 European countries, where they are a completely normal part of housing policy. It is interesting that private renters in England spend a higher proportion of their income on rent than those in any European country apart from Luxembourg and Norway. Our homes are in worse condition, too. Rent controls are of course not a panacea. They are needed alongside a suite of housing policies, and increasing social housing supply is really important. However, the private rented sector is in an affordability crisis now, and it will take huge amounts of effort and time, even with the best will in the world, to increase the social housing supply on a scale that will impact private rents. Modelling from Generation Rent and other economists predicts that building 1.5 million homes over this Parliament will decrease the private rent burden by just over 1%. Moving on to new clause 9, there are 16 million disabled people in the UK—more than a fifth of the population—and 19% of them live in the private rented sector. The Equality and Human Rights Commission estimates that a shocking one in three disabled people in the private rented sector lives in unsuitable accommodation, and a Government survey reveals that an appalling 44% of private landlords have said that they will not rent to someone who requires home adaptations. My amendment seeks to ensure that, if all tenants can put up shelves, disabled tenants should be allowed to put up grab rails. If all tenants can replace a showerhead, disabled tenants should be allowed to put in accessible washing facilities. It is not acceptable that disabled tenants must get permission for these most basic adaptations. In Committee, the Minister was sympathetic to my concern but argued that the Equality Act 2010 already covers this issue. However, it clearly is not doing the job. Disabled people are explaining this very clearly and patiently, as did the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), whom I thank.
If the Minister can confirm that the cross-party meeting will include the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and that it will take place before the Bill goes to the Lords, I will be happy to withdraw my new clause.